You've got it backwards. Apple/Google dictate what you can do in your own store if you sell in theirs, and you cannot sell anything in your own store that will work with an item purchased in theirs. It's a monopoly that taxes at 30% and needs to die in a fire

C@LAg said:

---

BudFox7 said:

---

You've got it backwards. Apple/Google dictate what you can do in your own store if you sell in theirs, and you cannot sell anything in your own store that will work with an item purchased in theirs. It's a monopoly that taxes at 30% and needs to die in a fire

---

I do not have it backwards. It is still, at the end of the day, Google's store. Not Epics.

Epic just has a rack of goods it can sell in Google's store, taking Google's payment, IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO.

Otherwise, Epic is more than free to sell their goods for use on the platform outside the scope of Google's store.

---

But it's anti-competitive when the two phone OS's both restrict access to consumers. If I had an iPhone I'm forced to use the Apple store to install any apps. And if a developer wants their game on the device that a significant portion of the population owns they are forced to give Apple a cut of the pie. If Apple let users install apps without jailbreaking or then you'd be on to something.

Juries aren't really the best to decide these complex matters. They are usually comprised by a bunch of idiots

There are multimillion dollar patent cases involving highly complex technology being decided by people that barely managed to get out of high school

C@LAg said:

---

BudFox7 said:

---

You've got it backwards. Apple/Google dictate what you can do in your own store if you sell in theirs, and you cannot sell anything in your own store that will work with an item purchased in theirs. It's a monopoly that taxes at 30% and needs to die in a fire

---

I do not have it backwards. It is still, at the end of the day, Google's store. Not Epics.

Epic just has a rack of goods it can sell in Google's store, taking Google's payment, IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO.

Otherwise, Epic is more than free to sell their goods for use on the platform outside the scope of Google's store.

---

Ya you don't really understand this issue, it's clear.

Excellent ruling.

Currently, if you sell fortnight on Play Store, you can't sell Fortnight skins through the Fortnight app, it has to go through Play store.

That wouldn't be a big deal, except it's hard as hell to install an app on an android phone except through the Play store.

If Epic could publish a link on its websight that you could click to install Fortnight, this would not be a case
But, since the OS make it all but impossible to install apps outside the store, they have an effective monopoly.

That is easy to prove through stats alone. Virtually 100% of apps go through the store.

Since they have a monopoly, forcing payments through the store is arguably anti competitive.

I think good ruling.

The larger issue here is that we have a mobile phone duopoly and this issue is down line from that. And it's solely due to the critical mass nature of apps and developers only having the resources to create apps for two ecosystems at most.

Microsoft OS died because of lack of app support. Otherwise they had a great phone OS brewing. Considering the almost necessary nature of mobile phones in most of society's eyes I don't see how you solve the OS problem.

Disrupting this payment monopoly by each ecosystem may be the only lever to pull to create any kind of competition.

The fact that you couldn't have any alternative payment outside of their store for items in game, not in the Play Store or in the App Store but in the app itself that is the problem. If Blizzard wanted to make items you purchased through Battle.Net available on say Diablo Immortal they really couldn't. It would violate the ToS for Apple and Google. Which is ridiculous.

Nbd, I'm sure google and apple aren't doing anything truly nefarious like back in the robber baron days when someone tried to bundle a browser with their operating system.